Message-ID: <2f9b95b4-77e4-3036-9207-d4d497a87e62@dunslane.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 09:52:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: Problem with moderation of messages with patched attached.
Content-Language: en-US
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
Cc: Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>,
 Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <CALT9ZEGbAR84q_emsf1TUMPqXT=c8CxN16g-HQCxgkLzekM+Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+OCxowPX_r29PVkzEUHkGU-M8FEB_SJTdeVPtqDn=N-yQMusQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALT9ZEHrTMLoBGVPgzfpCawwpbVXCDULP7E3V9xrgcHbboNC2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+OCxoxjwmL-D9UoyTYbx699MA17B5DP=dC8BM=5k4Fs477-ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALT9ZEHjix5D_CxLUKcveAY1jpS+3h8UYz+aL+Z0aj9UKr=ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+OCxoyj74jzbD=vTDM8vkxQGGnVsv7hN2tFmDEyo=PAbCpDhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220319184811.yblhyw6b6dswnx5o@alap3.anarazel.de>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
In-Reply-To: <20220319184811.yblhyw6b6dswnx5o@alap3.anarazel.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2f9b95b4-77e4-3036-9207-d4d497a87e62%40dunslane.net>
Precedence: bulk


On 3/19/22 14:48, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-03-03 13:37:35 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation
>>>> rules for people in that way I'm afraid.
>>>>
>>> Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
>>> answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.
>>>
>> Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages
>> legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate
>> -hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.
> I don't think it's actually that rare. But most contributors writing that
> large patchsets know about the limit and work around it - I gzip patches when
> I see the email getting too large. But it's more annoying to work with for
> reviewers.
>
> It's somewhat annoying. If you e.g. append a few graphs of performance changes
> and a patch it's pretty easy to get into the range where compressing won't
> help anymore.
>
> And sure, any limit may be hit by somebody. But 1MB across the whole email
> seems pretty low these days.
>

Of course we could get complaints no matter what level we set the limit
at. I think raising it to 2Mb would be a reasonable experiment. If no
observable evil ensues then leave it that way. If it does then roll it
back. I agree that plain uncompressed patches are easier to deal with in
general.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com